Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26423706›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of sports medicine2016

Monitoring the athlete training response: subjective self-reported measures trump commonly used objective measures: a systematic review.

Anna E Saw, Luana C Main, Paul B Gastin

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of sports medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 308 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
308citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
40.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

308 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 823 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

248 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna E SawCentre for Exercise and Sport Science, Deakin University, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4461-2469
Luana C MainCentre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9576-9466
Paul B GastinCentre for Exercise and Sport Science, Deakin University, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Deakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring athlete well-being is essential to guide training and to detect any progression towards negative health outcomes and associated poor performance. Objective (performance, physiological, biochemical) and subjective measures are all options for athlete monitoring.

objectiveWe systematically reviewed objective and subjective measures of athlete well-being. Objective measures, including those taken at rest (eg, blood markers, heart rate) and during exercise (eg, oxygen consumption, heart rate response), were compared against subjective measures (eg, mood, perceived stress). All measures were also evaluated for their response to acute and chronic training load.

methodsThe databases Academic search complete, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and PubMed were searched in May 2014. Fifty-six original studies reported concurrent subjective and objective measures of athlete well-being. The quality and strength of findings of each study were evaluated to determine overall levels of evidence.

resultsSubjective and objective measures of athlete well-being generally did not correlate. Subjective measures reflected acute and chronic training loads with superior sensitivity and consistency than objective measures. Subjective well-being was typically impaired with an acute increase in training load, and also with chronic training, while an acute decrease in training load improved subjective well-being. SUMMARY: This review provides further support for practitioners to use subjective measures to monitor changes in athlete well-being in response to training. Subjective measures may stand alone, or be incorporated into a mixed methods approach to athlete monitoring, as is current practice in many sport settings.

Indexed as

AthletesSelf ReportAffectAthletic PerformanceCreatine KinaseHeart RateHumansOxygen ConsumptionPhysical Conditioning, HumanStress, PhysiologicalCreatine KinaseFatigueOvertrainingQuestionnaireRecoveryWell-being

Identifiers

PMID26423706
PMCPMC4789708
OpenAlexW2111075265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.